Friday, September 21, 2007

(One of a series of weekday posts on the life of Winston S. Churchill.)

Yesterday we talked about Churchill and Greta Garbo. She was one of a number of Hollywood luminaries Churchill befriended. Charlie Chaplin was another.

Off the top of my head and in a hurry for which I apologize, I offer the following:

Churchill and Chaplin met at a reception while Churchill was on a trip to California in October 1929. They seemed to have struck up a friendship almost immediately.

The two men had a common interest in Napoleon. Chaplin wanted to play Napoleon in a movie; Churchill had for many years wanted to write the Emperor’s biography. The two men discussed then, and for some years afterward, Churchill writing the screen play for the movie in which Chaplin would star. But nothing came of it.

During the 30s Chaplin was invited a number of times to lunch at Chartwell.

Churchill, of course, was aware of Chaplin's far-left politics but didn't let that get in the way of their friendship. He once described Chaplin as " bolshy in politics - delightful in conversation."

While I'm not citing sources today because of my hurry, I'll vouch for everything I've just said. But the amusing anecdote I'm about to relate I can't vouch for. I tell it in the spirit of "why let facts get in the way of a harmless, funny story" and with the intent of starting your weekends with a smile.

It seems that Chaplin and Churchill once had the following exchange:

Chaplin: "I'm thinking about making a movie on the life of Christ and playing the lead."

James Taranto at Best of the Web Today offers the following post, Dead Metaphor, after which I make a few comments below the star line ---____________________________________________________

Here is a story to brighten your weekend: Early this afternoon we received an email from one of our most loyal readers. We'll withhold his name, because our purpose here isn't to make him look silly.

Suffice it to say that he writes us several times a week, his nickname for President Bush is "Chimpy," and the following message, which we quote verbatim is actually quite a bit more temperate than his usual fare:

No wonder the entire world sees this fool for the complete moron that he is.

I now see that his supporters, such as your august self, have truly, really, fundamentally no shame and no sense of embarrassment. Bush makes us all look like dopes--after all he was elected twice (ooops, make that stole the election twice--my bad)

If only his idiot gaffs were the worst of it...

He is truly worthless as a president and as a man!

Our correspondent sent us a link to a blog called First Draft, in which someone styling himself "Holden Caulfield" says of the president, "Christ, what a dumbass," and links to the following Reuters dispatch:

Nelson Mandela is still very much alive despite an embarrassing gaffe by U.S. President George W. Bush, who alluded to the former South African leader's death in an attempt to explain sectarian violence in Iraq.

"It's out there. All we can do is reassure people, especially South Africans, that President Mandela is alive," Achmat Dangor, chief executive officer of the Nelson Mandela Foundation, said as Bush's comments received worldwide coverage. . . .

"I heard somebody say, Where's Mandela?' Well, Mandela's dead because Saddam Hussein killed all the Mandelas," Bush, who has a reputation for verbal faux pas, said in a press conference in Washington on Thursday. . . .

References to his death--Mandela is now 89 and increasingly frail--are seen as insensitive in South Africa.

Part of the reason why there is not this instant democracy in Iraq is because people are still recovering from Saddam Hussein's brutal rule. I thought an interesting comment was made when somebody said to me, I heard somebody say, where's Mandela? Well, Mandela is dead, because Saddam Hussein killed all the Mandelas. He was a brutal tyrant that divided people up and split families, and people are recovering from this.

So there's a psychological recovery that is taking place. And it's hard work for them. And I understand it's hard work for them. Having said that, I'm not going the give them a pass when it comes to the central government's reconciliation efforts.

In this context, it is clear that the literal meaning of "Where's Mandela? is "Where is the Iraqi who will play the role in his country that Mandela played in postapartheid South Africa?" This was a pithy metaphor, not an "embarrassing gaffe."

Now, how did Reuters get the story wrong?

There are, it seems to us, three explanations:

o Stupidity. The reporter was so bone-headedly literal-minded that he simply did not understand the rhetorical device Bush was employing.

o Laziness. The reporter wasn't actually at the press conference and didn't bother to check the context of the quote.

o Dishonesty. The reporter knew full well that Bush was speaking metaphorically and deliberately twisted his meaning in order to fit the stereotype that Bush "has a reputation for verbal faux pas."

In the case of the particular Reuters dispatch "Caulfield" links to, laziness is the most likely answer. It's datelined Johannesburg, so the reporter surely was not at the press conference. But ultimately the explanation for the "worldwide coverage" this "gaffe" has received is either stupidity or dishonesty.

Some journalist either failed to understand or deliberately misrepresented Bush's remark.

And the joke is on people like our Bush-hating correspondent, who gullibly eat this stuff up.

Jackson sharply criticized presidential hopeful and Illinois Sen. Barack Obama for “acting like he’s white” in what Jackson said has been a tepid response to six black juveniles’ arrest on attempted-murder charges in Jena, La. Jackson, who also lives in Illinois, endorsed Obama in March, according to The Associated Press.

Today we read that Jackson new denies saying Obama was “acting like he’s white,” but the newspaper that carried the original report is standing by its report. You can read that story here.

The above reminded me of 1984 and Jackson’s reference to Jews as “hymies” and his reference to New York as “Hymietown.”

When called out for making the anit-Semitic slurs Jackson at first vigourously denied doing that. Then when he learned there was a tape of his remarks, he decidiced to “have pray” with Jewish bretheren.

Rev. Jesse Jackson referred to Jews as "Hymies" and to New York City as "Hymietown" in January 1984 during a conversation with a black Washington Post reporter, Milton Coleman.

Jackson had assumed the references would not be printed because of his racial bond with Coleman, but several weeks later Coleman permitted the slurs to be included far down in an article by another Post reporter on Jackson's rocky relations with American Jews.

A storm of protest erupted, and Jackson at first denied the remarks, then accused Jews of conspiring to defeat him. The Nation of Islam's radical leader Louis Farrakhan, an aggressive anti-Semite and old Jackson ally, made a difficult situation worse by threatening Coleman in a radio broadcast and issuing a public warning to Jews, made in Jackson's presence: "If you harm this brother [Jackson], it will be the last one you harm."

Finally, Jackson doused the fires in late February with an emotional speech admitting guilt and seeking atonement before national Jewish leaders in a Manchester, New Hampshire synagogue.

Yet Jackson refused to denounce Farrakhan, and lingering, deeply rooted suspicions have led to an enduring split between Jackson and many Jews. The frenzy also heightened tensions between Jackson and the mostly white establishment press.

I've got travel connections now, but I'll say more about this post tomorrow.

Yesterday I posted N&O Lashes Out at Newsweek. My post concerned the N&O's ego-driven snit-fight with Newsweek over the two publicaions Duke lacrosse coverage. N&O managing editor John Drescher all but said yesterday that Newsweek had plagerized N&O reporting:

Newsweek can beat its chest all it wants to and claim it “was the first major publication to pick apart the prosecution’s case.” A more accurate description would be it was the first national publication to read The N&O’s coverage, re-write it and pass it off as original reporting.

Let’s all keep our eyes out for its response. This should be an interesting story for people following either the Duke Hoax, journalism or both.

While we wait for Newsweeks’ response, there’s more N&O lashing out news to report.

And would you believe that this time the N&O is targeting not a major publication that's part of a multi-billion dollar news empire but a little blog in North Carolina, JohninCarolina.com.

You can read about it below. You’ll see a post I left on the thread of Drescher’s post in which I try to tell Drescher what I think decent people want to see happen. That so upset the N&O that Melanie Sill, the N&O’s executive editor for news steped in and said false things about me. You can read the responses which follow Melanie's in character falsehoods, including one I’ve just left further down the thread of Drescher’s post.

I have a heavy travel day today but I’ll be back to this be the weekend at the latest.

"Newsweek can beat its chest all it wants to and claim it 'was the first major publication to pick apart the prosecution’s case.'

A more accurate description would be it was the first national publication to read The N&O’s coverage, re-write it and pass it off as original reporting.

As I said in a JinC Sept. 2 post, Newsweeks' Thomas Shouldn't Cluck , I didn’t want to get into trying to decide which was the “first major publication to pick apart the prosecution case.”

What I know for sure is that both Newsweek and the N&O were very late in doing that.

You were both well behind journalists such as La Shawn Barber, Thomas Sowell and Stuart Taylor, and blogs and bloggers such as KC Johnson, Lead and Gold, RealClearPolitics, and The Johnsville News, to name just a few of many.

I just looked at a JinC post from April 9, 2006, which included a comment I sent executive editor for news Melanie Sill asking why four weeks after the alleged crimes on the night of March 13/14, there were no suspect descriptions beyond “white male” and why the N&O had not asked Nifong about that and whether the accuser had been able to make a positive ID of any of her alleged attackers.

But, Editor Drescher, you’re right the N&O did have many “firsts” concerning important aspects of what was then called “the Duke lacrosse rape scandal.”

In your March 24 report which “broke” the “Duke lacrosse story,” you repeatedly referred to Crystal Mangum as “the victim” and thereby cast the Duke students as her victimizers.

That’s an undisputed N&O first and most of MSM rushed along to follow your framing of the players as the victimizers.

On March 25 the N&O was the first newspaper to report Mangum was new to stripping, even though you knew from your own reporting in 2002 of crimes she’d committed that she was strip dancing at least by then. You didn’t report that or her criminal background.

You were the first major news organization to have that information and fail to report it for weeks.

On March 25 you also had the critically important news Mangum told you that the second dancer had also been raped at the party, but hadn’t reported it to police for fear of losing her job, as well as the statement she made to you that she thought the second dancer would “do anything for money.”

You failed to report that news, so extraordinarily exculpatory for the players. And what is worse by many magnitudes of mendaciousness, you covered it up for thirteen months as you watched the players and their families endure an horrific ordeal while you sold newspapers every day of those thirteen months.

No other major publication, not even justly reviled NY Times and Durham Herald Sun did anything as harmful to innocent individuals and our community as the N&O’s withholding of the exculpatory information.

One more “first and only” for the N&O and then I’m done.

On April 2, 2006 the N&O published a photo of the “Vigilante” poster large enough so that anyone, including unstable and dangerous people, could enlarge it and have face photos of the 43 white Duke students pictured on it.

The N&O published the photo after Duke had expressed concerns that doing so would add to the already considerable danger the players were facing. Did Newsweek or any Noth Carolina daily do that?

I think you can credit the N&O with a "first and only" on that. Even the justly reviled NY Times and Durham Herald Sun didn't publish such a photo.

Editor Drescher, instead of getting into an ego-driven snit-fight with Newsweek, the N&O would better serve truth, the community and its own long-term interests if you do the following:

1) Publish a detailed story which holds nothing back in explaining why you withheld for 13 months the exculpatory news Mangum gave you on March 24 and what it was like for N&O staffers to watch the players indicted, threatened, and savaged by most major publications while you were sitting on news that could have changed all that.

2) Retract your March 25 story which you told readers was about an “ordeal” that ended in “sexual violence.” You and the informed public know it was based almost entirely on lies.

3) Publish on your front-page a detailed account of how the fraudulent March 25 story was created, including an explanation of why you left out of it the news you had of the players’ cooperation with police, an explanation of how you came to get the interview with Mangum, and acknowledgment of whatever involvement Nifong and others working the attempted frame-up had to do, as anonymous sources, with the story.

4) Issue a full, unconditional apology to the players, their families, Coach Mike Pressler and his family, who were the people most harmed by your story.

5) Apologize to your readers and the rest of the media whom you deliberately misled.

6) Apologize for publishing the "Vigilante" poster and assure everyone that the people responsible for publishing it no longer work for the N&O or any other McClatchy publication.

John, there will be no further N&O response to your accusations, which include greater distortions with each repetition. We have responded repeatedly; see previous posts under category of Duke lacrosse coverage to see accusations and responses.

Comment from: PD Smart via Darby via JinC [Visitor] 09/20/07 at 19:46

Dear Melanie,

I am a south African who has followed the Duke Lacrosse since its inception. I have a question for you:

Why are you seemingly incapable of responding in a reasonable manner to the post above by JinC? It is a well researched, well written and asks questions most reasonable readers would like answers to.

From what I have read of your responses to others who offer a critique (all I have seen seem too well mannered and cogent to be considered a criticism),of articles written by yourself or other N&O staffers you seem only capable of responding that they "border on harassment"!

Why is this? Surely someone as well educated as yourself must be a little more articulate that that. Your readers deserve better!

You have done no such thing. Your "response" merely has been to say that your early reporting "could have been better" and that the reason you withheld exculpatory information from the 3/25/06 story was that "you couldn't confirm it."

For the record, the exculpatory information was that Crystal Mangum told your interviewer that Kim Roberts was also raped. Had you put that in the story, everyone would have known from the get-go that Mangum's wild tales were flakey. She told everyone she talked to a different story.

And you knew this.

Yet because you and your newspaper chose to print lies, a lynching almost took place, three men's lives were put on hold for a year, and Durham's taxpayers are on the hook for a lot of money.

You and your newspaper have a lot to answer for. And you will, sooner or later.

Comment from: John in Carolina [Visitor]09/21/07 at 11:46Folks,

Because there's no hyperlink option for commenters, here's a URL to a comment I left at this blog in April to a post by Dep. Managing Editor Dan Barkin, who never responded to to.

After Duke had expressed concerns about the lacrosse players’ safety, the N&O want ahead and published anonymously on April 2, 2006, a Sunday, your highest circulation day, the “Vigilante” poster photo containing face photos of 43 white lacrosse players, all identified by name.

Although exec editor Melanie Sill has said it was only a “small” photo, it was actually two columns wide, 7.25 inches long, and placed on the most prominent part of the page: top right-center (the 4th and 5th columns of a 6 column page).

I’m told that because of the size of your “Vigilante” poster photo, those seeking to identify and target the students could easily enlarge your photo with a very good resolution that would allow for easy recognition of the players.

On the same day you published the “Vigilante” poster, you ran a story reporting that Duke VP for Student Affairs Larry Moneta had taken the extraordinary but, in my opinion, reasonable step of cautioning Duke students about their safety after attacks on Duke students and a rumor of a possible drive-by shooting.

After Duke had expressed particular concerns for the safety of the lacrosse players and right at the time Moneta was warning all students about threats to their safety, the N&O published its “Vigilante” poster photo.

The N&O knew or should have known it was adding to the endangerment of all Duke students; and particularly to the danger the students pictured on your anonymous “Vigilante” poster photo already faced, forty-three young people, many still in their teens._________________________________________

To Melanie and John Drescher: Besides the fact the what you just read is an accurate description of what the N&O did, is there anything else about it that would make you criticize?

To everyone else: Thank you for your intelligent and supportive comments.

If enough of us speak up and refuse to accept its nonsense ,the N&O may improve.

It may even get to a point where it will never again inflict on our community the false, racially-inflammatory coverage and cover-up which did do much to launch and sustain for thirteen months the obviously fraudulent indictments of three innocent young men.

Let’s work to improve the N&O and dream of a better future in which the N&O treats members of all races fairly.

Thursday, September 20, 2007

(One of a series of weekday posts on the life of Winston S. Churchill.)

Readers Note: Some of you left note expressing understanding at my need to cancel yesterday. Thank you very much.

John___________________________________________

Now Churchill and Garbo.

Churchill had been a movie fan from before the days of talkies. If he really liked a movie, it wasn’t unusual for him to see it five or more times. Charlie Chaplin was one of his favorite actors. There was no question as to his favorite movie actress: Garbo.

In Memories and Adventures (Weidenfield & Nicolson, 1989) Churchill’s grandson and namesake, tells an amusing and touching anecdote about Churchill and the great, enigmatic Garbo:

Grandpapa invited me to spend a few days with him as his guest at the Hotel de Paris in Monte Carlo. One evening we dined with his friend, the Greek shipping tycoon, Aristotle Onassis, at a suburb restaurant called the Chateau de Madrid. Among the guests at the dinner were Greta Garbo and her friend and confidant George Schley.

There is no doubt that my grandfather enjoyed the company of beautiful women. He had been an ardent fan of Miss Garbo since her early screen successes and had seen all her movies many times, Queen Christiana and Ninotchka being special favourites. Though the years had taken their toll and she had become something of a recluse, she was still a wonderful-looking woman. Grandpapa remained in thrall to her as well as, no doubt, to the memory of what she had been.

We were sitting at the table closest to the window. ….

All at once, in the middle of dinner, Miss Garbo, seated on Grandpapa’s right, announced she had a problem. Toward the end of his life my grandfather had difficulty hearing … and Onassis, whenever he was with him, would stand ready to relay the conversation.

“What did Miss Garbo say?” enquired my Grandfather solicitously. Onassis, replying in excellent English, but laced with a heavy Greek accent, answered in a loud voice so that he could be heard: “Miss Garbo, she say, she is too hot in her long … underpants, so she proposes to take them off.”

This announcement caused quite a stir among diners at the immediate adjacent tables. Grandpapa, not sure if he had heard quite right, asked in a tone of some surprise; “What did Miss Garbo say?”

Onassis ever eager to be helpful, repeated once again what he had already said, but with even greater deliberation. By now the eyes of the whole restaurant were riveted on our table as Miss Garbo proceeded to execute a most discreet striptease beneath the tablecloth while Grandpapa patted her gently on the knee, intoning: “Poor lamb, poor lamb” as the offending garment was removed. (pgs. 115-116)

Randy Pausch, a Carnegie Mellon University computer-science professor, was about to give a lecture Tuesday afternoon, but before he said a word, he received a standing ovation from 400 students and colleagues.

He motioned to them to sit down. "Make me earn it," he said.

They had come to see him give what was billed as his "last lecture."

This is a common title for talks on college campuses today. Schools such as Stanford and the University of Alabama have mounted "Last Lecture Series," in which top professors are asked to think deeply about what matters to them and to give hypothetical final talks.

For the audience, the question to be mulled is this: What wisdom would we impart to the world if we knew it was our last chance? […]

Dr. Pausch's speech was more than just an academic exercise. The 46-year-old father of three has pancreatic cancer and expects to live for just a few months. His lecture, using images on a giant screen, turned out to be a rollicking and riveting journey through the lessons of his life.

He began by showing his CT scans, revealing 10 tumors on his liver. But after that, he talked about living. If anyone expected him to be morose, he said, "I'm sorry to disappoint you." […]

Clicking through photos of himself as a boy, he talked about his childhood dreams: to win giant stuffed animals at carnivals, to walk in zero gravity, to design Disney rides, to write a World Book entry.

By adulthood, he had achieved each goal. As proof, he had students carry out all the huge stuffed animals he'd won in his life, which he gave to audience members. After all, he doesn't need them anymore.

He paid tribute to his techie background. "I've experienced a deathbed conversion," he said, smiling. "I just bought a Macintosh."

Flashing his rejection letters on the screen, he talked about setbacks in his career, repeating: "Brick walls are there for a reason. They let us prove how badly we want things."

He encouraged us to be patient with others. "Wait long enough, and people will surprise and impress you."

After showing photos of his childhood bedroom, decorated with mathematical notations he'd drawn on the walls, he said: "If your kids want to paint their bedrooms, as a favor to me, let 'em do it."

While displaying photos of his bosses and students over the years, he said that helping others fulfill their dreams is even more fun than achieving your own.

He talked of requiring his students to create videogames without sex and violence. "You'd be surprised how many 19-year-old boys run out of ideas when you take those possibilities away," he said, but they all rose to the challenge.

He also saluted his parents, who let him make his childhood bedroom his domain, even if his wall etchings hurt the home's resale value. He knew his mom was proud of him when he got his Ph.D, he said, despite how she'd introduce him: "This is my son. He's a doctor, but not the kind who helps people."

He then spoke about his legacy. Considered one of the nation's foremost teachers of videogame and virtual-reality technology, he helped develop "Alice," a Carnegie Mellon software project that allows people to easily create 3-D animations. It had one million downloads in the past year, and usage is expected to soar.

"Like Moses, I get to see the Promised Land, but I don't get to step foot in it," Dr. Pausch said. "That's OK. I will live on in Alice." […]

Near the end of his talk, he had a cake brought out for his wife, whose birthday was the day before. As she cried and they embraced on stage, the audience sang "Happy Birthday," many wiping away their own tears.

Dr. Pausch's speech was taped so his children, ages 5, 2 and 1, can watch it when they're older. His last words in his last lecture were simple: "This was for my kids."

Then those of us in the audience rose for one last standing ovation.

There are times when it’s best to be silent. For me, one of them is now.

I’ll just call your attention to this link to the article where you’ll find a video tape of Dr. Pausch’s lecture, a photo of him with his children and a place where you can read others comments and leave one of your own.

A Washington Times editorial pretty much says what I think about Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s impending visit to the U.N. and New York:

It is a disgrace to the founding principles and mission of the United Nations that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will be allowed to speak before the body next week during the gathering of its General Assembly. Mr. Ahmadinejad, who is slated to speak next Tuesday in New York City, has openly called for the destruction of Israel, a U.N. member-state.

I was glad the WT was careful to say Ahmadinejad’s visit would be “a disgrace to the founding principles and mission of the United Nations.” His visit in no disgrace to the U.N. as it currently exists today as a hot bed of anti-Semitism.

"God willing, in the near future we will witness the destruction of the corrupt occupier regime," Mr. Ahmadinejad said in June. In 2005, he claimed that Israel "must be wiped out from the map of the world."

Why aren’t we hearing from all those “Bush is Hitler” Democrats now that there’s a President who really wants to complete Hitler’s “final solution?” Did they all go and Moveon.com?

Such rhetoric has been condemned by U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, who, despite his strongly worded criticism of Mr. Ahmadinejad, must take more concrete action against the Ahmadinejad regime.

State Department officials have defended Mr. Ahmadinejad's speaking engagement, saying the U.N. is a place where member states can engage in dialogue, regardless of how the world despises its actions. Such a stance is puzzling. Under the shadow of the Holocaust, the United Nations was founded in 1945 by a war-torn world weary of conflict and was ready to embrace peace, social progress and human rights.

Mr. Ahmadinejad has chosen not to engage in a respectful dialogue and is instead calling for another genocide—and of the same original victims. This is in flagrant disregard of the U.N.'s mission.

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has rightly expressed outrage at Mr. Ahmadinejad's presence in New York, pointing out in a letter to Mr. Ban that the despot is supporting Hezbollah's terrorist efforts, flouting the international community through his nuclear weapons program and supporting Shi'ite militia extremists in Iraq.

Mr. Romney commendably called on the United States to reconsider its participation in the U.N. should the body continue to act as a toothless overseer when it comes to Iran.

Romney’s right on that one. There has to come a point where the U.S. asks itself whether the U.N. is worth trying to save.

Sure, the U.N. does some humanitarian work. But so do many other organizations and without the massive corruption that runs throughout the U.N.

Republican Sen. John McCain yesterday also condemned Mr. Ahmadinejad's scheduled visit to American soil. We urge politicians on both sides of the aisle to join these ranks and demand increased U.N. pressure on Mr. Ahmadinejad.

They want you to clutch their “news-baskets” and stay on the left-hand side of life’s road lest the sly, dangerous Fox News catch you.

Sure, within and between MSM news organizations there are lots of petty jealousies, snit-fights and mean gossiping. But most of that is usually kept from the public.

But things are a little different right now.

We have Dan (“unimpeachable source”) Rather’s suit against CBS, Viacom and some executives of both organizations. And we have the Raleigh News & Observer lashing out at Newsweek.

I’m going to skip the Rather matter for now and comment on the N&O’s “smack-slap” at Newsweek delivered by N&O managing editor John Drescher in his post, Newsweek stretches on Duke lacrosse.

I’ve just left the following comment on the thread of Drescher’s post. It’s the same as you’ll read here except there's no indent or hyperlink options for commenters on the thread so I left a link to this post there, along with my comment.______________________________________________

Dear Editor Drescher:

Because you don't have a hyperlink option I'm including this URL which contains hyperlinks for the comment which follows.

Newsweek can beat its chest all it wants to and claim it “was the first major publication to pick apart the prosecution’s case.” A more accurate description would be it was the first national publication to read The N&O’s coverage, re-write it and pass it off as original reporting.

As I said in a JinC Sept. 2 post, Newsweeks' Thomas Shouldn't Cluck , that I didn’t want to get into trying to decide which was the “first major publication to pick apart the prosecution case.”

What I know for sure is that both Newsweek and the N&O were very late in doing that.

You were both well behind journalists such as La Shawn Barber, Thomas Sowell and Stuart Taylor, and blogs and bloggers such as KC Johnson, Lead and Gold, RealClearPolitics, and The Johnsville News, to name just a few of many.

I just looked at a JinC post from April 9, 2006, which included a comment I sent executive editor for news Melanie Sill asking why four weeks after the alleged crimes on the night of March 13/14, there were no suspect descriptions beyond “white male” and why the N&O had not asked Nifong about that and whether the accuser had been able to make a positive ID of any of her alleged attackers.

But, Editor Drescher, you’re right the N&O did have many “firsts” concerning important aspects of what was then called “the Duke lacrosse rape scandal.”

In your March 24 report which “broke” the “Duke lacrosse story,” you repeatedly referred to Crystal Mangum as “the victim” and thereby cast the Duke students as her victimizers.

That’s an undisputed N&O first and most of MSM rushed along to follow your framing of the players as the victimizers.

On March 25 the N&O was the first newspaper to report Mangum was new to stripping, even though you knew from your own reporting in 2002 of crimes she’d committed that she was strip dancing at least by then. You didn’t report that or her criminal background.

You were the first major news organization to have that information and fail to report it for weeks.

On March 25 you also had the critically important news Mangum told you that the second dancer had also been raped at the party, but hadn’t reported it to police for fear of losing her job, as well as the statement she made to you that she thought the second dancer would “do anything for money.”

You failed to report that news, so extraordinarily exculpatory for the players. And what is worse by many magnitudes of mendaciousness, you covered it up for thirteen months as you watched the players and their families endure an horrific ordeal while you sold newspapers every day of those thirteen months.

No other major publication, not even justly reviled NY Times and Durham Herald Sun did anything as harmful to innocent individuals and our community as the N&O’s withholding of the exculpatory information.

One more “first and only” for the N&O and then I’m done.

On April 2, 2006 the N&O published a photo of the “Vigilante” poster large enough so that anyone, including unstable and dangerous people, could enlarge it and have face photos of the 43 white Duke students pictured on it.

The N&O published the photo after Duke had expressed concerns that doing so would add to the already considerable danger the players were facing. Did Newsweek or any Noth Carolina daily do that?

I think you can credit the N&O with a "first and only" on that. Even the justly reviled NY Times and Durham Herald Sun didn't publish such a photo.

Editor Drescher, instead of getting into an ego-driven snit-fight with Newsweek, the N&O would better serve truth, the community and its own long-term interests if you do the following:

1) Publish a detailed story which holds nothing back in explaining why you withheld for 13 months the exculpatory news Mangum gave you on March 24 and what it was like for N&O staffers to watch the players indicted, threatened, and savaged by most major publications while you were sitting on news that could have changed all that.

2) Retract your March 25 story which you told readers was about an “ordeal” that ended in “sexual violence.” You and the informed public know it was based almost entirely on lies.

3) Publish on your front-page a detailed account of how the fraudulent March 25 story was created, including an explanation of why you left out of it the news you had of the players’ cooperation with police, an explanation of how you came to get the interview with Mangum, and acknowledgment of whatever involvement Nifong and others working the attempted frame-up had to do, as anonymous sources, with the story.

4) Issue a full, unconditional apology to the players, their families, Coach Mike Pressler and his family, who were the people most harmed by your story.

5) Apologize to your readers and the rest of the media whom you deliberately misled.

6) Apologize for publishing the "Vigilante" poster and assure everyone that the people responsible for publishing it no longer work for the N&O or any other McClatchy publication.

A former follower of a polygamous-sect leader sobbed on the witness stand Friday as she described the terror and despair she felt on the eve of her wedding at age 14, and said she became intensely depressed after having sex. "I kept thinking I felt like I was getting ready for death," she testified on the second day of the trial of Warren Jeffs, leader of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

Jeffs is charged with two felony counts of rape as an accomplice. Prosecutors contend he used his religious authority to coerce the ceremonial marriage and pressure the teen bride to have sex with her 19-year-old cousin against her objections.

In her testimony Friday, the woman, now 21, said she was shocked when she learned she had been selected for the marriage by Rulon Jeffs, Warren Jeffs' father, the church prophet at the time who is now dead. The woman said she pleaded with Rulon Jeffs to delay the marriage until she turned 16 or to be given to another man.

Her efforts to avoid the union failed, said the woman, who is not being identified by The Associated Press because she is alleging sexual assault. She testified that Warren Jeffs told her: "Your heart is in the wrong place; this is what the prophet wants you to do."

The marriage took place on April 23, 2001, in a motel in Caliente, Nev., owned by FLDS members. Describing her emotions during the wedding ceremony, the woman said: "Trapped. Extremely overwhelmed. Immense pressure."

She said she hung her head and cried in despair when pressed by Jeffs to say "I do" and had to be coaxed to kiss her new husband.

Jeffs then commanded the new couple to "go forth and multiply and replenish the Earth with good priesthood children," she testified.

In the FLDS community, marriage and motherhood are considered the highest achievements for women, who pray to be prepared to marry and follow a worthy man from a young age. But girls receive no information about their bodies, sexual relations or procreation, the woman testified, and she said she didn't even know sex was the means by which women had babies.

Married for at least a month before they had intercourse, the woman said her husband told her it was "time for you to be a wife and do your duty."

"My entire body was shaking. I was so scared," she testified. "He just laid me on the bed and had sex."

Afterward, she slipped into the bathroom, where she downed two bottles of over-the-counter pain reliever and curled up on the floor, she said.

"The only thing I wanted to do was die. I just wanted to die," she said. She did not elaborate, but said she later threw up the medicine. […]

There are people who question a good deal of what the woman is reported as testifying to.

Independent of what the court determines to be the facts of this case, I strongly object to child marriage and forced marriage anywhere and polygamy in this country (many Muslims believe polygamy is fundamental to their religion. If they live in a Muslim theocracy, I’m not going to object unless Muslims in polygamous marriages come to America. At that point my position is: leave all the wives home but one and don’t stay too long).

But I didn’t cite this story to talk about marriage or polygamy.

I cited it because the AP and other news organizations have given it so much attention. Yahoo had it prominently featured on its main news page. The story included photos of Jeffs alone and Jeffs with his attorney. There was also a link to a video clip.

For as long as I can remember I’ve read stories from time-to-time of cults in America engaging in the practices reported here. But it’s unusual one gets so much attention and is filled with so much heart-wrenching, graphic detail.

And why do you think the AP mentioned in the first paragraph that Jeffs was leader of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, and then referred throughout the rest of the lengthy 19-paragraph article to “the FLDS,” and only said the following in the last two sentences of its story:

Members of FLDS, which broke away from the Mormon church, believe polygamy brings exaltation in heaven.The Mormon church disavowed polygamy in 1890 and excommunicates members found to be practicing plural marriage.?

My answer is “the Romney effect.”

The Democrats who control news reporting at the AP work hard for their party. The entire story is here.

The newspaper publisher reported total advertising sales slipped 9.2 percent to $143.6 million from $158.2 million a year ago.

The company, which owns 31 daily newspapers including The Miami Herald and The Sacramento Bee, said national ad revenue dropped 11.7 percent while classified slid 17.3 percent. Classified categories experiencing the most weakness were real estate, down 25.8 percent, and employment off 19.1 percent.

"We have seen continued declines in real estate advertising, particularly in the California and Florida newspapers," Chairman and Chief Executive Gary Pruitt said in a statement.

He added that he expects little improvement in advertising trends before the fourth quarter and anticipates revenue will likely still be negative in that quarter. For the year to date, pro forma revenue is down 7.1 percent while ad sales are off 8 percent. Pro forma results include newspapers purchased in the Knight Ridder acquisition and exclude the Minneapolis Star Tribune for the first six months of last year.

For one reason, Durham’s two daily newspapers – the Durham Herald Sun and the Raleigh News & Observer – generally do a lousy job covering important news stories.

Example: On August 25 the H-S reported three young men falsely indicted on gang rape and other felonies with the connivance of certain Durham Police officers and their supervisors while Durham’s highest ranking officials looked on and did nothing, had retained attorneys to represent them in possible suits against the city

Before you could say, “that sounds like Durham,” we were told the men were requesting as settlement $30 million and actions by the city to assure the injustices they were subjected to won’t be inflicted on other innocent people.

Both papers reported the city has only $5 million in liability insurance. People did the math and began asking: “Does that mean my taxes will go up?”

H-S Editor Bob Ashley and N&O Editor Steve Ford last March quickly embraced Crystal Mangum’s lies and cheered the now disbarred Mike Nifong on even through the November election

That gives you some idea of why Durham’s in trouble.

But there’s more.

The H-S and N&O editorial pages have been quick to denounce the $30 million request as too much. It’s way out of line: Ashley and Ford are sure of that.

Of course, it’s a certainty they don’t have all or, very likely, even most of the relevant facts that would sustain the victims’ suit.

The two editors can’t even be sure the second- and third-hand sources who passed information to their reporters which the reporters passed to them got whatever information they had right in the first place.

Given that, most sensible people would wait before rendering an editorial judgment. But facts and common sense don’t have much to do with H-S and N&O editorials.

That’s why Nifong and his co-conspirators got as far as they did. H-S and N&O editorials not only cheered them on, they encouraged enablers at Duke and elsewhere, including those in their own newsrooms.

Suppose instead of both papers supporting Nifong in numerous editorials, the H-S and N&O had written editorials with headlines asking the community: Rape Accusations Against Duke Lacrosse Players – Law or Lynch Law?

And suppose H-S and N&O editorials had included statements like the following:

In this case, prosecutor Michael Nifong has proceeded in the wrong way.

Having an accuser or a witness pick out the accused from a lineup is standard procedure. That procedure not only serves to identify someone to be charged with a crime, it also tests the credibility of the accuser or witness -- or it should, if the lineup is not stacked.

A lineup should include not only people suspected of a crime but also other people, so that it tests whether the accuser or witness can tell the difference, and is therefore credible.

But the stripper who claimed to have been raped by members of the Duke lacrosse team was presented with a lineup consisting exclusively of photographs of members of the lacrosse team.

In other words, whoever she picked out had to be a lacrosse player and would be targeted, with no test whatever of her credibility, because there was no chance for her to pick out somebody who had no connection with the team or the university.

Apparently District Attorney Nifong was no more wiling to test the accuser's credibility than was the TV talk show hostess who went ballistic, though credibility is often crucial in rape cases.

Mr. Nifong went public with his having DNA evidence collected.

Then, after the DNA failed to match that of the accused, the students were arrested anyway and their bail was set at $400,000 -- in a community where a youth accused of murder had bail set at $50,000.

When a prosecutor acts like he has made up his mind and doesn't want to be confused by the facts, that is when the spirit of the lynch mob has entered the legal system. [...]

The headline about lynch law and the indented comments you’re just read are from a Thomas Sowell column published on April 24, 2006.

If Ashley and Ford had been writing the kinds of things Sowell wrote instead of "snuggling in bed" with Nifong and rogue cops, I don't think we’d be looking at such possibly large suits against my hometown.

What Ashley and Ford did to Durham during the Duke Hoax is typical of them.

They're two of the reasons Durham’s in trouble.

Message to Thomas Sowell: Take a bow.

Message to Bob Ashley and Steve Ford: Please stand up and take some boos.

Then sit down and do something decent. Write editorials apologizing for getting the Hoax so wrong and doing so much to enable it

Tuesday, September 18, 2007

(One of a series of weekday posts on the life of Winston S. Churchill.)

I’ll respond again today to a reader’s comment.

On Sept. 13 I posted on the powerful influence Henley’s poem Invictus, which Churchill memorized as a boy and remembered into his last years, had on him.

The post drew the following comment:

From the prose more powerful than poetry department:

Even though large tracts of Europe and many old and famous States have fallen or may fall into the grip of the Gestapo and all the odious apparatus of Nazi rule, we shall not flag or fail.

We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender,

and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the Old.

I couldn't argue that those words – so full of pride, determination, courage and majesty – spoken on May 4, 1940 just as the last Allied soldiers and seamen were leaving Dunkirk don't excel Invictus or any other poem in their influence on Churchill; and for that matter, the British people and liberty loving people everywhere then and since.

So I concede to the commenter and say “thank you.”

In a few weeks I’ll do something else. I’ll pull together a few posts dealing with incidents surrounding the development of the speech and the private reactions to it of some people “both great and small” as they say.

The quoted phrase ran through the Sunday news shows and the blogosphere like a bad intestinal virus.

On CNN's "Late Edition," Rep. Tom Lantos (D-Burlingame) was asked if he agreed with Greenspan. "To a very large extent I agree with him, and I think it is very remarkable that it took Alan Greenspan all these many years and being out of office [to state] the obvious."

Well, that is very interesting. But first we should clear the air about something. Greenspan claims that the quote was taken out of context.

Greenspan called the Post -- Bob Woodward, no less -- to say that, in fact, he didn't think the White House was motivated by oil. Rather, he was. (emphasis added)

A Post story Monday explained that Greenspan had long favored Saddam Hussein's ouster because the Iraqi dictator was a threat to the Strait of Hormuz, through which much of the world's oil passes every day.

Hussein could have sent the price of oil way past $100 a barrel, which would have inflicted chaos on the global economy.

In other words, Greenspan favored the war on the grounds that it would stabilize the flow of oil, even though that wasn't the war's political underpinning.

"I was not saying that that's the administration's motive," Greenspan told Woodward, "I'm just saying that if somebody asked me, 'Are we fortunate in taking out Saddam?' I would say it was essential." (emphasis added)

So let's get back to Lantos, the California congressman who agreed with the misconstrued Greenspan that it was "obvious" we went to war for oil. What's funny -- though not really ha-ha funny -- is that Lantos voted for the war.

If it was so obviously a war for oil, why did he vote for it?

Now really, Jonah, did you have to ask that question?

Why mention Lantos at all?

Lantos didn’t really mean to hurt the President and cast America's actions in the worst possible light. He only wanted to gain a little political advantage for himself and his fellow Dems.

The New York Betray Us does that all the time. And didn't Senator John Kerry vote for the Iraq War before he voted against it? Or was it the other way around? Or was it just something like that?

Anyway, let’s get back to Greenspan and what he was really talking about:

Unless, of course, [Lantos] thinks it's hunky-dory to go to war because of oil -- though that didn't sound like what he was trying to say.

Now there you go again, Jonah.

Let’s this time really get back to your explanation:

As several other politicians and officials noted over the weekend, no White House briefer ever told Congress that this was a war for oil.

The debates in Congress didn't say this was a war for oil. Bush never gave a single speech saying this was a war for oil. (If oil was all Bush wanted, he hardly needed to go to war to get it.)

There’s more before Jonah closes with:

The last time Greenspan made a gaffe of sorts, his comment about Wall Street's "irrational exuberance" sent worldwide markets into a tizzy.

This gaffe is more ironic because it was so plain-spoken, but it also managed to call attention to a case of irrational exuberance -- among Bush-bashing war opponents.

Readers Note: At the N&O’s Editors’ Blog Deputy Managing Editor Linda Williams, who had a major role in producing the deliberately fraudulent March 25, 2006 “anonymous interview” story is obfuscating on behalf of N&O Columnist Barry Saunders. I’ve just left the following comment on the post thread. There are no hyperlinks in the comment there because the EB doesn’t offer commenters that option.

John______________________________________

Dear Editor Williams:

Historian and blogger KC Johnson, co-author of Until Proven Innocent has said this about columnist Barry Saunders:

http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/2007/09/civil-suit.html

"The reaction from some quarters [to impending civil suits against Durham] was predictable.

The N&O’s Barry Saunders penned a race-baiting column falsely asserting that Reade Seligmann and Collin Finnerty had “hired themselves a stripper.” This false claim, and Saunders’ other taunts, only bolstered the falsely accused students’ case against Durham, by showing the continuing harm to their reputations—something Saunders might have wanted to consider before he wrote.

And Saunders, hyper-sensitive to the slightest of perceived slights against African-Americans, appeared to be unconcerned with his own perceived slight against the religion of the falsely accused players.

But, of course, this is the same Barry Saunders who previously eviscerated media coverage of a gang-rape allegation—when the defendants were black NCCU students. Their accuser (whom Saunders mocked) didn’t show up for a probable cause hearing, prompting dismissal of charges.

But the mere filing of charges, according to Saunders, caused long-term damage to the students’ reputation: ‘I saw the two dudes’ pictures in the paper. I’m not saying they looked guilty, but let’s face it. It’s hard to look innocent when your mug shot is splashed on television or in the paper in connection with some horrific story.’ (To remind Saunders, the mugshots of Seligmann and Finnerty were “splashed”—over and over and over again—on national television and on the cover of Newsweek.)”

Editor Williams, Exec Editor for News Melanie Sill has said Saunders meets N&O standards. And no one disputes that.

But what many people are asking is why a race-baiter like Saunders “meets N&O standards?”

Just a few years ago the N&O made what it said was a sincere apology for its long history of race-baiting. The N&O promised readers it would no longer race-bait.

By withholding relevant news and promoting the lie that white lacrosse players hadn’t cooperated with police, the N&O helped bring about the indictments of three innocent white men.

But you knew the white men had cooperated with police.

I don’t believe you would have promoted the falsehood that the players hadn’t cooperated with police if they’d been black men instead of white men.

I’m not wrong about that, am I?

The N&O withheld for over a year the exculpatory news that Mangum told you on March 24, 2006 that Kim Roberts had also been raped at the party, but didn’t report it for fear of losing her job. You also withheld the news that Mangum said Roberts would do anything for money.

You wouldn’t have withheld such critically important news for over a year if Mangum had been a white woman and David Evans, Collin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann had been black men indicted by a white DA like Mike Nifong using grand jury testimony by two white cops like Benjamin Himan and Mark Gottlieb, would you?

After Duke University expressed concerns that publishing the “Vigilante” poster with face photos of 43 white Duke students on it would add to the danger those students were already facing, the N&O published the poster anyway. The N&O didn’t even tell readers what Duke had said.

If, in similar circumstances, NC Central University expressed concerns that publishing an anonymous “Vigilante” poster with face photos of 43 of its black students the DA and cops were saying were involved in the brutal beating and gang rape of a young white mother who was a student at Duke, would you have gone ahead and published the poster anyway?

I think the answer is obvious. Of course not. The N&O would never do something like that to a group of black males. Even your worst critics don’t believe you’d do such a thing to a group of black men.

Imagine they issued a statement denouncing the N&O for doing something which “reeked of racism every bit as ugly and dangerous as the racism often found in Southern newspapers in the last century.”

What would you have said in response?

What if those people – all of whom often proclaimed their commitment to civil rights – demanded the N&O apologize to the players, their families and the community and fire the people responsible for publishing the racist “Vigilante” poster?

What would you have told your fellow N&O editors they should do?

Who were the N&O journalists who decided to publish the “Vigilante” poster? Do any of them still work for the paper? If any do, what does that tell the community about the N&O?

I know what my answer is but I’d like to hear yours first.

Editor Williams, I hope you don’t have any problem agreeing with this: At the N&O, race still matters.

I also hope you agree with this: Whites have been too passive in accepting “back of the bus” treatment from the N&O. We should demand the N&O once-and-for-all stop playing one race against another and treat people of all races fairly.

Thank you for your attention to my comment. I look forward to your response.

Here’s something La Shawn wrote last Spring. It’s only two sentences but for readers’ ease, I put some spacing into the first sentence:

The emerging images pop right out at you: two strippers start dancing, the players get rowdy, the strippers get angry and start to leave,

the players get angry and call them names as they head out, one of the strippers returns the taunts, the drunk accuser-stripper goes back in to retrieve her shoe (but may not have found it), second stripper is angry at the players and the drunk stripper, calls 911 to report name-calling, has someone else call 911 to report drunk woman in her car,

cop arrives and sees drunk woman passed out, drunk woman is taken to a “substance abuse” center, realizes she may be in big trouble because of her past drunken criminal behavior (leading police on a car chase and trying to run down an officer), claims rape, is sent to hospital where exam reveals injuries “consistent” with rape, points the finger at three men at the party,

media and black “leaders” go crazy and play up race angle, DA - in a fight for political survival - takes the race bait and vilifies 46 men, some of whom weren’t at the party, tests all but the black player, and despite no evidence charges two men with rape.

That’s my story, and I’m sticking to it.

La Shawn posted her "story" last April 23rd.

That was one week after the now disbarred DA, Mike Nifong, and Durham Police officers Benjamin Himan and Mark Gottlieb teamed up to fraudulently indict Collin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann; and it was three weeks before they did the same thing to David Evens.

For the next nine months Duke President, Richard (“Whatever they did was bad enough”) Brodhead and Duke’s trustees could find nothing critical to say about Nifong and the obvious framing of three Duke students for gang rape and other felonies.

Also for the next nine months, the editorial pages of the Durham Herald Sun and the Raleigh News & Observer cheered Mike Nifong on and were pleased when he won the November election.

The H-S, under the leadership of Editor Bob Ashley, is imploding as its circulation and ad revenues plummet. But the N&O has a weekday circulation of over 170,000, and says it’s always on the lookout for talented black journalists and columnists.

So why doesn’t the N&O hire the smart and talented La Shawn Barber? Why, instead, does it hire and foist on its readers a race-baiting news columnist like Barry Saunders?

You see in the TRD story which appeared in 2006 that Reid anticipated he would complete the manuscript by Fall 2007.

That hasn’t happened.

In preparation for this post, I very recently spoke with someone who knows Reid. That person tells me Reid’s not finished the manuscript. The person was reluctant to ask Reid if he had a new completion date.

Once the manuscript goes to the publisher, a very complex editorial process will begin. There'll be literally thousands of incidents, quotes and sources to check, proofing, pre-publication readings by experts, etc., etc.

It's safe to say the book won’t be coming out for at least another year, and very possibly much later than that.

Sorry to give you this news. I know we are eager to read the book.

The person who gave me the information about the current status of the manuscript promised to let me know when there’s information which will update what I’m reporting here.

As you read it, please keep in mind the following: the N&O "broke" the Hoax story on March 24 and published the "anonymous interview" story the next day. The N&O knew then about Mangum's criminal background. But the N&O didn't mention it to readers for two weeks. It also at the time was withholding exculpatory news for the players it had concerning Mangum's claim the second dancer had also been raped at the party, but didn't report it for fear of losing her job. The N&O would wait a year before reporting that critically important news the day after the wrongly indicted players had been declared innocent.

"Only a few days?"

Here's the Apr. 9, 2006 post:

Correction: The following post says the N&O published the "Vigilante" poster twice. In fact, it published it once. I apologize for my error.

John****************************************

Raleigh News & Observer exec editor Melanie Sill has been praising The N&O's coverage of the story involving allegations of rape leveled against some members of the Duke University lacrosse team.

Today I left the following comment on the thread at her blog post. You ought to go there because the comments are very, very informative. I'm not the first John you see. I believe he's an attorney. I'm further down the thread.

At Melanie's blog I can't hyperlink so where you see hyperlinks here, there are URLs there. Otherwise, nothing was changed.___________________________

Melanie,

Regarding The N&O’s converage of the rape allegation directed at some members of the Duke lacrosse team:

Last Sunday , Apr 2, The N&O ran a lengthy, front-page story with a theme involving the university’s “shame.” (You even used the subhead: ‘Shame on Duke!’)

The N&O said: “Many Duke alumni are hurt and angry about what they say has, so far, been a disgraceful episode for the university”

You quoted 3 Duke alums. They all supported your theme. One, Malbert Smith, you’d quoted just a few days before.

Your “fair and accurate” newspaper didn't quote a single alum who supports the university.

But you could have if you wanted to.

There are thousands of Duke alums who are proud of the university for many reasons, including its refusal to cave in the face of outrageous attacks by The N&O and people like Professor Baker.

When Baker, in an open letter, condemned Duke for, among other things, engaging in what he called “timorous piety and sentimental legalism” most alums knew he was talking about due process and presumption of innocence.

You don’t tell readers Baker said such things as: “in a forthrightly ethical setting with an avowed commitment to life-enhancing citizenship, such a violent and irresponsible group would scarcely be spirited away, or sheltered.”

In an Apr 5 story The N&O reported: “Duke Provost Peter Lange said in a letter that he was 'disappointed, saddened and appalled' by an outspoken letter Baker wrote the Duke administration last week.”

The N&O makes it seem Lange characterized Baker's letter as “outspoken” when in truth Lange called it a “form of prejudice.”

"If Duke could pack up and move, it would, eager to escape Durham's reputation as a cesspool of civic incompetence.

Likewise, if Durham could bid Duke 'adieu,'it would."

Can we agree, Melanie, that Saunders meets The N&O’s reporting standards?

Almost four weeks after the attack is alleged to have occurred, there's apparently been no positive identification of any individual player on the team through use of police lineups or face-photos such as were used for the "vigilante poster" The N&O’s published at least twice.

Has The N&O reported why it seems there's been no positive identification by the alleged victim of a single team member ?

Has The N&O asked the DA about that? Did you ask the alleged victim about positive identifications when she granted you an interview?

On Apr. 5 NC Central University Chancellor James Ammons issued a statement to the “NCCU family.” It is a very important part of a story about which you say The N&O has “pushed hard.”

But I don’t recall seeing anything in The N&O about the Chancellor’s statement; and a few minutes ago I couldn’t find anything in your archives. Did you ignore his statement?

I hope not. It’s calm, wise, and very newsworthy. The Durham Herald Sun published it in full. You can take a look at it here.

Ammons’ statement is a welcome contrast to the inflammatory prejudgments of The N&O and Professor Baker.

Thank you for taking the time to read this.

Johnwww.johnincarolina.com

Note: I’m signing www.johnincarolina.com because there are other John’s commenting here.

The story is described as a “recap” of recent events “on the lacrosse case front.”

I want to “walk” through the story with you. The story text is in italics; my comments are in plain.

About half way through the story, I’ll stop commenting. Tomorrow I’ll comment on the rest of the story. But I’ve included the whole story in this post for your reference.

I think N&O reporter Matt Dees has done a good job reporting a story that includes a lot of material dealing with some very complex issues.

I look forward to your comments. I’m betting some of you will point out things neither Dees nor I mention. We should wind up with a thread that “adds to the story.”

Now let’s begin: ----

Lawyers for the three former Duke lacrosse players once accused of rape have given the city until early next month to either pony up $30 million or face a federal civil lawsuit, according to sources with knowledge of the negotiations who requested anonymity.

Anonymous sources. So much for N&O reporter Joe Neff’s claims May 22 at the National Press Club that the N&O has a policy against the use of anonymous sources and never used a single anonymous or unnamed source (Is there a difference?) during all its Duke lacrosse reporting up to that date.

Attorneys Barry Scheck and Brendan Sullivan Jr. told city leaders in a meeting last week that it was a take-it-or-leave-it offer, though many legal experts say few things in civil litigation aren't subject to negotiation.

The settlement also would require the city to create an independent commission to review complaints about police involvement in the case and push state leaders to enact other reforms, such as mandatory videotaping of identification procedures.

The settlement demands were widely reported last Friday, initially attributed to unnamed sources familiar with the negotiations between the city and the players' lawyers. City officials have refused to confirm the reports, but they have not disputed any of the details.

If no settlement is reached, lawyers for former players Dave Evans, Collin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann indicated they would sue under a federal statute claiming that the city violated their clients' constitutional rights by bringing rape charges later deemed unfounded.

Attorneys not involved in the possible suits (I’m not an attorney) say the suits will almost certainly be based not just on what was done to bring the charges, but on what has been done subsequently to cover-up the attempted framing of the players.

The attorneys all stress the city has never officially acknowledged that what’s been done was wrong. It’s thereby, according to the attorneys, continued a “pattern and practice” of “abuse of process” which began in March 2006 and continues at present. That will make it more liable if suits are brought.

The city is regarded as vulnerable to the lawsuit in three key areas:

* The April 4, 2006, photo-identification procedure, conducted in violation of city policies, which led to indictments in the case.

* Discrepancies between hand-written notes taken by police Investigator Benjamin Himan and typewritten notes submitted months later by Sgt. Mark Gottlieb. Gottlieb wrote in July 2006 that accuser Crystal Gail Mangum on March 16 had described three people who fit the characteristics of the three indicted players. Himan's notes, written the day of the March meeting with Mangum, had offered three very different descriptions.

* A CrimeStoppers poster released by police shortly after the initial rape allegations. It said a woman "was sodomized, raped, assaulted and robbed. This horrific crime sent shock waves throughout our community."

Two important points here:

1) Durham City maintains CrimeStoppers is an independent organization for whose actions it bears no responsibility, and that the police release of the poster was not DPD approved.

Those claims will surely be disputed by the players’ attorneys.

What is indisputable and a key area of the city’s vulnerability are the actions of DPD Cpl. David Addison who, between March 24 and 28, repeatedly told the public about a “horrific crime,” “really, really strong evidence,” and “a wall of silence.” All lies. None were ever disputed by Addison’s DPD supervisors or city manager Patrick Baker. (Durham has a city council –city manager form of government. Therefore, Baker is the city’s highest executive officer.)

2) Attorneys tell me the city is also very vulnerable because of what they say the courts refer to as “the reasonable, trained officer” standard against which the actions and inactions of certain Durham police officers will be judged as well as what, if anything, their supervisors did when they learned of the officers’ actions and inactions.

As it's been explained to me, how a court and possibly a jury will look at what“ reasonable, trained officers” should be expected to do ought to be a major area of concern for both the individual police involved and for city leaders.

In terms of the city’s vulnerability – really liability – in this area, every attorney I’ve talked to has said Durham Police chief Chalmers’ report saying the police did nothing wrong in the Duke lacrosse “investigation” and Baker’s signoff on it, put the city squarely on record as saying it was satisfied DPD’s officers acted as the city expects “reasonable, trained officers” to act.

“Chalmers’- Baker is a big, big problem for the city if these suits ever go to court,“ one attorney said. “ A federal judge or jury isn’t likely to see what Gottlieb did as what a “reasonable, trained officer” would do. And while Gottlieb may be held to some liability for what he did, a judge or jury is going to look at the city and say, 'You knew about what he did and you never said it wasn't OK. So you’re big-time liable, Durham.'"

If the city decides to agree to the settlement demand, the $30 million would average out to about $142 per Durham resident. The city's liability insurance covers it up to $5 million.

A couple of items:

The $5 million coverage for a city Durham’s size (pop. about 210,000) seems very low to me.

The local media haven’t reported on the amount of coverage cities of comparable size have. Nor have local media reported on how the rate Durham, with a $500, 000 deductible, pays compares to rates paid be cities of comparable size whose policies have the same deductible.

I hope a knowledgeable reader or blogger takes a look at these matters and comments or posts.

Folks, please let me know if you see anything relating to the city’s coverage and what we’re talking about here.

And now back to the N&O:

What we don't know:

WILL DURHAM TAKE THE SETTLEMENT?

City attorneys are weighing the strength of the players' case, but there are indications that the city won't settle for $30 million.

The “word on the street” is that the city has decided to fight the suits. And it's coming from people who are usually right about most things.

I have no inside information. I just know enough to flash: “caution.”

In situations such as this one, decisions are subject to change. So my attitude is wait-and-see.

It’s also important to remember that decisions regarding civil suits may soon be influenced by either a state or federal investigation or, attorneys tell me, possibly by both, looking into what is now an almost 18-month-long process that very likely involved criminal actions intended to first, frame the players, and then, cover-up the framing, something that continues to this day.

I can tell you what my response will be if the day comes when it’s absolutely certain the city will fight the suits thereby making it possible for the public to learn more of what was done: “Dear Old Durham, you’ve made my day.”

Elected city leaders say they already are feeling pressure from residents not interested in paying a high-dollar settlement.

"They think it's ridiculous," Mayor Bill Bell said.

"People have heard there was a settlement with Duke. [The players] didn't spend any time in jail, didn't go to trial and now they're giving demands that could affect people's pocketbooks as taxpayers."

It’s interesting to consider some of the things Bell is doing here.

First, he presents himself as a mayor who listens to the people. What’s more, he gives voice to what he says he hears people are saying “about a settlement with Duke.” He notes the players didn’t spend any time in jail, didn’t go on trial, etc, etc.”

What Bell’s says people in Durham are telling him is what some people here are saying.

But there are other people here speaking out and Bell isn't quoting them.

They're people outraged by what Bell, Baker and others have done and failed to do since Crystal Mangum and the Raleigh News & Observer teamed up to tell us a pack of lies. They’re folks who are asking what was going on all those months; and why didn't any of our city's leaders do anything about it except let it continue?

Do look for the answers to those questions in the N&O.

Bell’s remarks sound like those he might deliver when the endorsement committees of the Durham Committee on the Affairs of Black People , the People’s Alliance, The Independent, and Bob Ashley’s Herald Sun ask him: “Your Honor, what do you think about these suits?”

In case you’re new to Durham, the two political interests groups and the two newspapers I just mentioned all worked hard to help elect Mike Nifong last November.

HOW VULNERABLE IS THE CITY?

That’s an easy question: VERY, VERY.

Individual police officers can be held responsible for misconduct, but a higher legal standard must be met to find an entire city liable.

Under federal law, plaintiffs would have to prove that the city exhibited a "pattern and practice" of violating people's constitutional rights or that top city leaders directly condoned the violation of the players' rights.

Some attorneys have pointed to the report issued by City Manager Patrick Baker and then-Police Chief Steven Chalmers earlier this year, which largely defended the department's handling of the case, as proof that the city signed off on police action.

ALL of the attorneys I’ve talked to have pointed to Baker-Chalmers as proof the city’s highest officials signed off on what the police did.

They also point to Deputy Chief Ron Hodge’s public statements about strong evidence of guilt and DPD’s making no notable mistakes in the last five years as further evidence that what was done to the players was part of a “pattern and practice” of violating the players' rights.

Otherwise, why wouldn't Hodge have objected to what his department did? And why would Baker have selected Hodge as a finalist for Police Chief except that Baker felt Hodge was doing a splendid job of making sure DPD followed its "pattern and prectice?"

The sttorneys say more on the matter. I’ll get to some of it in another post.

But the report did not address the discrepancy between Himan's and Gottlieb's notes or the CrimeStoppers poster.

N&O reporter Dees, who wrote a story the previous day concerning a meeting Bell and Baker had with N&O editors and reporters, is right as regards the report not addressing discrepancies between Himan’s notes written at the time of the events and Gottlieb’s “straight from memory” notes written four months later.

Dees is also right that Baker-Chalmers doesn’t address the CrimeStoppers poster. For that matter, it also doesn’t mention Addison’s many false statements regarding a crime having been committed for which there was strong evidence and about which the players were “stonewalling.”

But Dees leaves it at that. Many readers may threfore conclude that by not mentioning certain matters, Baker-Chalmers helps the city in terms of the impending suits.

But that’s not so according to all the attorneys I’ve spoken to.

They say that by leaving out any mention of the Himan-Gottlieb discrepancies, the CrimeStoppers Wanted poster, and Addison’s very public and repeated lies as DPD spokesperson, Baker-Chalmers actually strengthens the victims’ already very strong claims against the city.

One attorney asked rhetorically: “What better argument could you have for those things being “pattern and practice” than Baker and Chalmers not even bothering to mention them?”

An attorney who was standing by added: “No judge or jury’s going to miss that.”

Folks, I’m going to end here.

Partly that’s because this “continued” part of the post is getting long; and partly it’s because I want to really cast some “light” on the next part of Dees’ story:

Chalmers contended that the April 4, 2006, photo procedure that led to identifications of suspects wasn't in fact a lineup, but was merely intended for Mangum to tell investigators who were potential witnesses.

I’ll be back tomorrow with a separate post on just that one sentence.

Then after that, I’ll post again concerning the last part of Dees' story.